The trick to debating Krugman

Krugman uses a rhetorical trick to state the truth, as he knows it, without upsetting his Progressive base.  He gets out the economic truth by referencing an expert in the subject that has done the research.  He protects the Progressive base by not mentioning cause or effect that violates Progressive principles. Consider his essay on the Enron price fixing debacle.  He references Wolak, who wrote the book on the problem:

But my most helpful source of all was Frank Wolak, the Stanford professor who also heads the CAISO market surveillance committee. (CAISO is the "system operator").

That is the expert reference, and he discusses the model, with this prefix:

It doesn't matter for current purposes whether that's a legal ceiling or the price at which utilities simply refuse to buy.

He must add this phrase because he is going to leave out a key cause and effect.  Serious readers will follow up, but his base will not. Thus he is protected from both angles.

I always follow up on the source with Krugman, and in this case find out that the expert did indeed blame government price fixing for the debacle.  The outcome of the Enron research?  When government allows the consumer to to use his light switch and control usage, then the system works fine.

Economists are dangerous people and cause economic crashes when they obtain a wide audience or a government audience outside of the field.